Despite Zionist attempts to stoke fears of antisemitism fewer Jews than ever are leaving Britain for Israel

This is proof that despite all the hype there is NO evidence of increasing anti-Semitism

 

One of the strange things about the fake anti-Semitism campaign is that no evidence is ever produced of its existence. Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon that exists almost wholly inside the heads of people like Tom Watson, Ruth Smeeth and Jon Lansman. Anti-Semitism is a trope for dopes.

The Community Security Trust, which in 2018 received £13.4 million pounds from the Home Office and which works in tandem with Israel’s Mossad (MI6) produces every year an Anti-Semitic Incidents Report.  Every year the Report records an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

Even the Sun opposes 'antisemitism'

The latest Anti-Semitic Incident Report 2018 is no exception. The Introduction to the Report states:

CST recorded a record high total of 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the UK last year. 2018 was the third year in a row that CST has recorded a record high incident total and means the problem of rising antisemitism in our country continues to grow.

This represented a 16% increase in anti-Semitic incidents compared to the 1,420 incidents in 2017. If true, this represents a worrying increase. But is it true or is it simply the result of increased diligence, reporting and the manipulation of data coupled with the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? How many of these 'incidents' are genuine examples of Jew hatred as opposed to hatred of what Israel does expressed in anti-Semitic manner?

After all Israel calls itself a 'Jewish state' despite the fact that there isn't very much that is Jewish about employing snipers to mow down hundreds of unarmed demonstrators.  Nor is torture and child abuse sanctioned in the Torah (at least the last time I read it, which admittedly is about 50 years ago!). Is it any surprise that some people react badly to what Israel does to Palestinians and abuse Jewish people in this country for it?

Is that anti-Semitism? Yes it is but the cause of that anti-Semitism is Israel and their Zionist cheerleaders in this country.  People like Dave Rich, the Deputy Director of the CST. This anti-Semitism is not however the visceral anti-Semitism that still exists in parts of Eastern Europe where Jews are believed to represent the evils of capitalism and engaged in secret conspiracies to undermine their national existence.

If the CST and the rest of the Zionist chorus were seriously concerned about anti-Semitism they would be going their best to distance British Jews from what Israel does and to make it crystal clear that Israel's claims to act as a Jewish state are false.  What the CST and the Board of Deputies does is the exact opposite.  Instead of opposing Israel's crimes they justify them. Last May the BOD justified Israel's murder of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza.  The wonder is not that a few people react in an inappropriate way but that more don't do so.

What is rarely mentioned is the number of Israeli Jews living outside Israel - estimated as at least 1 million.

One of the things that even the CST can’t do is to invent physical attacks on Jews, not least because these can be checked against Police records. One would therefore expect a concomitant 16% increase in violent attacks. The strange thing though is that ‘CST recorded a 17 per cent decrease in the number of violent antisemitic assaults, from 149 in 2017 to 123 in 2018.’

And whereas violent incidents usually comprise about one-third of overall hate incidents, in the case of anti-Semitism the percentage is just 7.5%.

This has not prevented the idea gaining ground that anti-Semitism is on an ever increasing upward spiral. The principal group propagating this myth is the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, an overtly Zionist group.

In 2015 the CAA brought out a survey which found that 54% of British Jews fear that Jews have no future in Great Britain and a quarter of British Jews have considered leaving. Even more astounding the CAA survey of 2,230 British Jews found that 56% felt that antisemitism in Britain had some echoes with the 1930's.

As Anshel Pfeffer of Ha’aretz observed this poll, if true, ‘shows a disconnect bordering on hysteria’ Pfeffer goes on to savage those who trade in such comparisons:

If the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously. If they honestly think that the situation in Britain today echoes the 1930s when Jews were still banned from a wide variety of clubs and associations, when a popular fascist party, supported by members of the nobility and popular newspapers, were marching in support of Hitler, when large parts of the British establishment were appeasing Nazi Germany and the government was resolutely opposed to allowing Jewish refugees of Nazism in to Britain, finally relenting in 1938 to allow 10,000 children to arrive — but not their parents who were to die in the Holocaust (that shameful aspect of the Kindertransport that is seldom mentioned) — and when the situation of Jews in other European countries at the time was so much worse, then not only are they woefully ignorant of recent Jewish history but have little concept of what real anti-Semitism is beyond the type they see online.

This nonsense about an ever encroaching anti-Semitism has been used to suggest that one-third of British Jews are thinking of leaving Britain. According to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s Barometer ‘1 in 3 British Jews have considered leaving Britain in the past two years due to antisemitism’ which works out as over 80,000 Jews.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency led with a similar story: 1 in 3 British Jews have considered emigrating over anti-Semitism, survey finds

Unsurprisingly Sky News gave uncritical coverage of the CAA’s survey in its report ‘More British Jews considering move abroad as anti-Semitism fears grow - poll.’

Tamara Cohen reported uncritically that

‘Almost one in three British Jews has considered moving abroad in the past two years, a survey has found.

The findings come from a large-scale study by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which surveyed nearly 4,000 members of the community during 2016 and 2017.

They found that 31% of British Jews had considered moving abroad, a rise from 28% during their last survey two years ago.’

What Sky and the JTA didn’t report was that the CAA poll was garbage, completely unscientific and not worth the paper it was written on.

In Analysis: British Jewry and a feeling of insecurity Jonathan Boyd, Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research described the CAA’s findings as being ‘based on a survey with little, if any, methodological credibility.’  It described the finding that 45% of British people were anti-Semitic as a ‘deeply flawed read of the data’. The IJPR found the CAA's survey to be 'littered with flaws' and 'irresponsible'. Due to 'quite basic methodological flaws and weaknesses', its poll of British Jews had 'very limited capacity' to assess the representativeness of its sample.

Of course you would not expect Britain's mainstream media to report these failings because not only does the story that one-third of British Jews leaving make a good story but it also fits into their anti-Corbyn narrative. It is one more stick to beat the Labour Left with.

This is the context for the hype that up to one-third of British Jews are considering emigrating to Israel. Yet what are the facts?

In an article at the beginning of March the Jewish Chronicle reported that ‘Aliyah [emigration of Jews to Israel] from Britain has dropped for a third year in succession, according to figures from the Jewish Agency. The number of UK Jews who left for a new life in Israel in 2018 was 534, slightly down from 550 in 2017 and considerably fewer than the 729 in 2016 and 770 in 2015.’

Which is really strange because one would have thought that with all those reports about the rule of the Gestapo in the Labour Party that the opposite would be the case. Jews should have been flocking to get out.  El Al, Israel's national airline should be booked for months ahead.  Instead it seems that barely one airplane was needed to take the whole bevy of British emigrants to Israel.  

Indeed it is likely, if France is anything to go by, that more Jews originating in Britain came back from Israel.  Because having dreamed of Israel for 2,000 years, according to Zionist folklore, Jews in Israel can't wait to leave this racist hothouse. That is why thousands of Jews in Israel today take out a German or Western passport as a safeguard against the country going completely lunatic.

Commenting on the numbers of Jews emigrating to Israel the Jerusalem Post informed its readers that  ‘Jewish immigration to Israel fell slightly in the first eight months of 2018 over the corresponding period last year, despite a 35 percent increase from Russia.’ Why was this? Although the number of immigrants from Russia saw a ‘dramatic rise’  this was, as was admitted, due to economic factors.

It should be added that though these Russian Jews, because of economic factors, are emigrating to Israel, when they get there most of them won't be considered Jewish by the Rabbis and thus can only marry their own kind. They are considered mamzers (bastards) and can only marry other mamzers. Such is life in a state based on race since there is no civil marriage in Israel.

The focus has been on Europe and France in particular yet the number of Jewish immigrants to Israel in 2018 fell by 31 percent compared to the 2017. Just 1,862 French Jews emigrated to Israel between Jan. 1 and Sept. 1. Likewise the number of Jews from the United States fell by 17 percent with just 2,066 U.S. Jews emigrating to Israel compared to 2,483 in 2017.

The Jerusalem Post, which referred to the first 8 months of 2018 only reported that emigration from the United Kingdom rose by 7 percent to 371. However it could not help but report that ‘Many Jews are contemplating leaving there in light of the prospect of the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party, with its antisemitism problem, reaching power.’

Opinion becomes fact in the twinkle of the eye.  Ha’aretz also reported that ‘According to recent reports, many British Jews are considering leaving their country because of anti-Semitism.’ Whilst observing that ‘If so, Israel does not as yet appear to be their preferred destination.’ Immigration figures for United States Jews showed a drop of 9 percent, to total 500.

The Times of Israel put a different emphasis on the immigration numbers. It was all due to a ‘Spike from Russia’  which had led to an increase of 5% in the number of Jews emigrating to Israel. The Times also reported a 25% drop from France and at 330 , a 4% drop from the United Kingdom.

None of this prevented that station of record, CNN reporting that ‘Anti-Semitism is so bad in Britain that some Jews are planning to leave’ and who did they quote?  Why Mark Lewis. The ‘famed libel and privacy lawyer, is leaving Britain. Worn down by years of anti-Semitic abuse and death threats, he has decided enough is enough.’ No mention is made of the fact that he and his partner, Mandy Blumenthal, are also founder members of far-Right Zionist group, British Herut..

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the previous Chief Rabbi, an outright Islamaphobe and a religious Zionist also repeated the same clichés that ‘Labour antisemitism causing British Jews to consider leaving country, says leading rabbi’.

One should bear in mind that when the CAA’s flawed poll revealing that one-third of British Jews were thinking of emigrating, the Jewish Chronicle ran their own poll: JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not considered leaving UK  As the JC reported ‘the reliability of the CAA data has been questioned. Social scientist Dr Keith Kahn-Harris said that it was “methodologically invalid. There can be no confidence in its representativeness”.

The reality is that despite the Zionist propaganda about ever increasing anti-Semitism leading to a mass emigration of British Jews, the actual figures show both a drop in anti-Semitic attacks and a drop in the emigration of British Jews.  Increasing Jewish emigration from Britain to Israel is wishful thinking, a Zionist wet dream.  A fantasy gone wrong!

Strange that!

Tony Greenstein

When it comes to Foul Mouthed Abuse, noone can outdo Zionist Lawyers like Mark Lewis

Pro-Israel lawyer Matthew Berlow sanctioned by the Law Society for racist smears against Scottish PSC member

When you think of members of the legal profession you think of the scales of justice and the statue of liberty. Justice blind to all special interests, political causes and favours. Lawyers are generally thought of as people who carefully weigh the pros and cons of an issue, always willing to see the others’ viewpoint. They are officially Officers of the Court and their first duty is to see justice is done. But when it comes to Zionist lawyers then you can throw all of that out of the window.

Support for the Jewish supremacism and the State of Israel is their first priority. They are not the first nor the last to put the interests of the State before the interests of justice. You only need to recall John Yoo and Jay Bybee two White House lawyers who produced legal opinions to justify torture. As the New York Times put it, they ‘were not acting as fair-minded analysts of the law but as facilitators of a scheme to evade it. The White House decision to brutalize detainees already had been made. Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee provided legal cover.’

Strange as it may see, NW Friends of Israel, which has previously worked with Tommy Robinson's EDL, had nothing to say about this meeting.  Perhaps not surprising since many of their members were in attendance

The same is true of the Zionist lawyers below. Support for Israel, right or wrong, is their only concern.  Land confiscation, virulent state racism, apartheid laws are all explained away by Jewish exceptionalism. Their legal training is but a weapon to be employed against supporters of the Palestinians. Shouting ‘anti-Semitism’ at every opportunity gives these lawyers the ideal pretext to engage in wholesale abuse.

Mark Lewis

Speaking of bigots, none come more obnoxious than Mark Lewis, who made a name for himself in the hacking cases against the News of the World. Lewis is an ardent supporter of Herut UK, the British branch of Likud.  It is an organisation that is steeped in racism. Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Prime Minister, is famous for going on Facebook at the last election to warn Jewish voters that ‘droves’ of Arabs have gone to the polls. Likud has presided over a dramatic increase in Israeli state racism, most recently sealed with the Jewish Nation State Law.

Lewis, who spoke at the relaunch meeting of Herut UK, is of the opinion that whatever the Israeli government does should be supported by British Jews and opposition to Zionism and Israel is automatically anti-Semitic. He therefore defends without reservation the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the theft of Palestinian land, the Jewish only roads etc. Indeed he will shortly become a settler himself and no doubt will excuse attacks on Palestinians, burning of crops, polluting water sources, demolition of houses by the need to fight ‘anti-Semitism’.

Like Berlow, Lewis is nothing if not abusive.  So much so that he has got himself hauled up before the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority on charges of abusing people on social media.  His excuse is that they are all neo-Nazis but that is but a pretext.

Lewis is a partner of Mandy Blumenthall, the representative of Herut UK. In August 2018, Lewis and Blumenthal told the Victoria Derbyshire programme that they are quitting the UK as they no longer feel safe because of anti-Semitismand they will move to Israel in December where they can practice their racism without being called to account. Blumenthal naturally lays the blame at the door of Jeremy Corbyn. Derbyshire, alone amongst BBC journalists gave them a good grilling and showed how vacuous are their claims.

Mark's day of rage

On 9 August 2014 when Israel was bombing Gaza, Mark Lewis railed on Twitter against anti-zionists, calling them anti-Jewish racist scum. It started at 2:33pm with Mark's tweet:

Why, as a British Jew, I’m terrified by anti-Semitism in my country.

Ruthless approach to antisemitism

The Times of Israel reported that “Lewis takes a ruthless approach, believing that it’s necessary to be aggressive against anti-Semites on social media.”

“Someone can be a Nazi, but at least [if they are taken to court] they can be a homeless Nazi,” he says. “I’m quite happy to take their homes off them. If these people would have rational debate, I would do that [instead], but they are nutters who have conspiratorial theories and I will never change their outlook.".

Making Craig Murray "homeless"

In September 2017, it was reported that Jake Wallis Simons, associate editor of the Daily Mail Online, was suing Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, for £40,000 in damages plus £100,000 legal costs for lawyer Mark Lewis, who was representing Simons in a High Court case commencing on 7 November 2017.

Craig Murray wrote that “This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.”

Craig Murray reacted:

"I sincerely hope [Mark Lewis] does not consider me a Nazi, though plainly this case is started by my falsely being smeared as an anti-Semite. But no matter how objectionable somebody may find my views on Israel/Palestine, how does it serve justice that “at least my” wife and 8-year-old son “can be homeless.” That is however precisely what Mr Lewis seeks to achieve and to be plain, he has threatened me in person with bankruptcy

High-profile solicitor facing tribunal over online spats with “neo-Nazis”

Law Gazette, 28.9.18.

Mr Lewis has been outspoken in his support of Israel. A former director of UK Lawyers for Israel, in June he halted the pro-Palestinian Al Quds rally in central London for an hour by refusing to move his wheelchair.

He said at the time that he did so to protest against Hezbollah flags and “inflammatory rhetoric”....

The newspaper also said that Mr Lewis took a “ruthless approach, believing that it’s necessary to be aggressive against anti-Semites on social media”.

Mr Lewis told Legal Futures that he could not comment on the case beyond saying that he would “fully defend” himself and that “it will be a very interesting battle”.

There have been an increasing number of disciplinary cases involving social media posts, made more acute where the solicitor identifies as such. Last year, the SRA issued a warning notice to solicitors on how to conduct themselves on social media. Media lawyer Mark Lewis to face SDT over social media comments

High profile media lawyer Mark Lewis – who came to public attention with his work on the phone-hacking cases – is to face a disciplinary tribunal over alleged comments on social media.

Mark Lewis

It emerged today that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has decided to prosecute Lewis, a partner at London firm Seddons.

The allegations are that in May 2017 he used his Facebook account to post ‘offensive and profane communications’ towards a third party.

The SRA also alleges that between July 2015 and December 2016 he used his Twitter account, which publicly identified him as a solicitor, to post offensive and profane communications.

Robert Festenstein

None comes nastier than Robert Festenstein, a bankruptcy solicitor.  He is essentially a fascist. So it was no surprise when he played the part of a solicitor in a video with none other than Tommy Robinson.  Festenstein is a founder of Jewish Human Rights Watch, an organisation that is dedicated to opposing human rights for Palestinians and anti-Zionists.

In May 2017 Festenstein wrote to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London attempting to close down the Palestine Expo 2017 Festival on the grounds it was a ‘Jewish hate festival’ despite it having numerous Jewish speakers like Ilan Pappe or Miko Peled. One thing JHRW shares with groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is a hatred for free speech and debate, the hall mark of fascism. 

The letter from Festenstein was one long lie.  It began with a lie: ‘We act for Jewish Human Rights Watch – JHRW.”

It would be more truthful to have said ‘I am Jewish Human Rights Watch – JHRW.” There are number of companies under the name JHRW or similar.

There is JHRW Education in which Festenstein is the sole director.

There is Jewish Rights Watch in which Festenstein is one of 3 directors.

In short Festenstein deliberately disguised his own connections to JHRW in order to make his letter seem more plausible. It would be interesting to see who paid him for the letter and how much!

A letter of total deception - Fenstenstein writes on behalf of a client who just happens to be himself

The next lie was to write that ‘’Whilst our client has no difficulty with legitimate protest, it is most concerned that you are allowing a group with terrorist links to operate an event on your premises.’ Yet more lies.  Like most Zionist activists Festenstein has the greatest difficulty with any protest to do with Palestine and the suggestion that there was any link with ‘terrorists’ is risible.  Given Festenstein’s links with the far-Right and Tommy Robinson he should perhaps have been looking nearer to home.

Recently members of JHRW attacked a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting in Manchester and are suspected of being involved in an attack on a Jewish Voice for Labour meeting at Labour Party conference in Liverpool.

Festenstein is also suspected of being involved in a meeting between Tommy Robinson and a dozen members of the Manchester Jewish community.

Festenstein isn't your run of the mill solicitor. He was fined £20,000 by the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal in November 10th for a series of breaches of the rules governing solicitors. They are detailed below. He was charged with a second solicitor whom he had employed, Bryan Slater.  Slater was struck off the rolls. In short Festenstein is a solicitor whom most people would give a wide berth to.

Jonathan Goldberg QC

The other Zionist lawyer I have become acquainted with is more of a clown than a villain like Lewis and Festenstein.  I refer to Jonathan Goldberg QC, who is a patron of the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. In an email exchange with a friend of mine he asked:

‘hear your friend Greenstein got his just deserts.

What was the problem with his family ? Was he an abused child ?

The ‘logic’ of this statement being that Jewish opponents of Zionism must have suffered ‘child abuse’.  Apart from anything else it trivialises the very real problem of child abuse.

I asked the learned QC what kind of idiot attributes political differences to child abuse. Because Zionists cannot perceive why anyone might oppose the ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies that Israel follows, critics are seen as suffering from psychological trauma of one kind or another. Goldberg responded that he was aware my father was a rabbi but that

‘where sons strive so desperately to dishonour their parents and negate everything they stood for publicly, as you have done so prominently, it often stems from a history of abuse, whether verbal, physical or worst of all  sexual.’

Whatever his talents, Goldberg’s expertise clearly doesn’t extend to the medical or psychological field. Even the most brilliant of Zionists, and there is no doubt that Goldberg is a very capable if not brilliant lawyer, unlike Lewis and Festenstein who are merely functionaries, Goldberg is nonetheless completely incapable of understanding why many Jews reject Zionism.

The attribution of political disagreement to  the realm of psychiatric causes was characteristic of Stalinism which incarcerated many dissidents in mental asylums.  Goldberg, for all his talents, is incapable of understand that it isn’t rejection of one’s parents but a rejection of Zionism and what it does to the Palestinians that more and more Jews find unappealing. 

Goldberg is probably a good example of how people can be brilliant in a narrow area like law but narrow minded bigots in all other areas. Despite an inauspicious start we continued our conversation and it became a little less heated. Indeed Jonathan despite continually promising that he would terminate the correspondence clearly couldn’t resist the temptation to engage with me!  A copy of the correspondence is below and the affair was the subject of a blog post. The Wit and Wisdom of Jonathan Goldberg QC

Goldberg is probably best remembered for his caustic comments on the failed litigation in Fraser –v- University College Union where it was alleged that the union’s Boycott of Israel policy discriminated against Jewish members of UCU. The Tribunal comprehensively rejected the case brought by Fraser ruling that the case ‘represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.’  Fraser was represented by Anthony Julius of Mischcon de Reya, the solicitors for the Princess Diana Fund who nearly bankrupted it with his hubris and fees!  Goldberg described the bringing of the case as ‘an act of epic folly by all concerned.... You only bring such showcase litigation if you are certain to win.”

Anthony Julius, who had brought the case, demonstrated a staggering degree of incompetence. For example all the claims were outside the time limits which are 3 months, at an Employment Tribunal. It is clear to all but Julius that Zionism is not a protected characteristic (thus meriting the protection of the Equalities Act 2010). Julius isn’t an employment solicitor and he was clearly out of his depths. Julius seems to have taken this criticism to heart.  Previously a flamboyant character he has gone to grass. Nothing has been heard of him since. 

Matthew Berlow

Below is the story of how criminal lawyer and Glasgow Friends of Israel activist Matthew Berlow fell foul of the Scottish Law Society because of his foul mouthed racist rantings. Berlow smeared and abused a Palestinian activist.  Justice however caught up with him as he has now been fined £1,750 by the Scottish Law Society in addition to being instructed to attend Diversity Training.  It is this latter punishment that Berlow resents more than anything else since he considers being Jewish grants him immunity from being a common and garden bigot. A report of this case is in the Herald on Sunday is entitled Diversity training for Jewish lawyer who called pro-Palestinian campaigners 'scummy racists'.

The Case of Matthew Berlow and Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Matthew Berlow is a member of Glasgow Friends of Israel, a far-Right racist group that uses Nazi style language when talking about 'euthanising' i.e. murdering Palestinians - 

Berlow described Dr Karolin Hijazi as a “thin-skinned…wannabe social justice warrior and a “snowflake”, a term popular with US White supremacists and the extreme right generally to attack those who stand up to them. A defender of the Israeli army, a force charged with war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, Berlow has agreed to pay the Law Society of Scotland a £1,750 fine for his behaviour but is upset that he has been mandated to undergo “diversity training”.

In 2016, the Aberdeen Branch of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) protested an Israeli Dead Sea cosmetics company which profited from the Israeli occupation and apartheid structures. Berlow, a staunch defender of a state that is openly racist, attacked demonstrators as “scummy racists”, claiming bizarrely that the Israeli company was merely an outlet for hatred of Jews, a "soft Jewish target to aim your bile at”. Protests across Scotland fuelled by Israel's massacres of thousands of Palestinians led to the Israeli company closing down and leaving the UK.

Dr Hijazi later reported Berlow to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which found “potential conduct issues". The Law Society of Scotland investigated and received Berlow's defence that his comments were not directed at "snowflake" Dr Hijazi but at the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Karolin Hijazi is a long-term, committed Palestinian campaigner. She was jailed by Israel in 2012 when a group of Scots joined the Welcome to Palestine effort to reach Bethlehem to help build a school. She refused food during detention with many of the others and was deported along with other British and Scots activists.

The Law Society of Scotland concluded that Berlow had used “derogatory language...damaging to the reputation of both the profession as a whole and of the individual solicitor concerned”. It would seem Berlow couldn't stop digging, for the Law Society judged his written defence of his original actions to be “derogatory and aggressive".

He was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and ordered to pay Dr Hijazi £100 compensation on top of the £1,750 fine.

Berlow will appeal the diversity training order on the basis of a 2017 attack on Scottish BDS campaigners by a minor pro-Israel blogger, David Collier, acting on behalf of the Israeli Embassy. The report claims SPSC is an anti-semitic organisation that denies the Holocaust.

Dr Hijazi said she found Berlow’s comments “particularly disturbing, having campaigned against racism, discrimination and bigotry all my life”. SPSC stands foursquare for Palestinian rights and opposes anti-semitism and vile Holocaust denial, which we consider no less repulsive than Berlow's denying that the Palestinian people suffered a brutal ethnic cleansing by Zionist militias in 1948 and subsequently.

In any event it is advisable to be sceptical about any utterance from Berlow and his comrades at Glasgow Friends of Israel; the Friends of Israeli Snipers openly use the dehumanising language of "euthanising" Palestinians.

Even after Berlow appeared as a prosecution witness in Glasgow Sheriff Court in a failed three-year effort by Scottish prosecutors and pro-Israel lobbyists to secure convictions for racism, i.e. antisemitism, against myself and Jim Watson, he and I maintained an email exchange. (I like the adage, "Hate the sin but not the sinner".)

During our exchanges, I pointed out what he knew, that his Friends of Israel were still lying about the verdict of the recent trial.

Matthew Berlow replied: "I will post the truth about the verdict AND I will make it clear that you are not anti Semitic and cannot be responsible for those that may attach themselves to your cause but that you try and root it out to the best of your ability...". In a separate email, dated 1 August 2017, Mathew acknowledged that "There is no doubt that you are not anti Semitic as you eloquently refute that at every opportunity..."

Normally, SPSC and other campaiging groups have to accept the most grotesque inventions from pro-Israeli groups since their deep pockets and our modest means make a defamation trial very difficult. The successful challenge by Dr Hijazi to unfounded attacks and smears, of which there have been many demented examples, should inspire those maligned in this way to fight back.

Mick Napier

West Calder

21 October 2018